Last weekend's events in Charlottesville Virgnia have led to all sorts of commentary and discussion online. This is in part because the events in question (and the context surrounding them) reveal larger differences in values between different segments of our polarized culture. The actions and responses raise all sorts of important questions in a number of areas that are worth addressing.
First off we have the original issue of whether we should be removing monuments to our country's history and past leaders. And if so, who should determine which ones, based on what criteria? And how should those doing it without legal authority be treated? Then there is the issue of how should we as Christians respond to the fact that their are people openly supporting Nazi ideas marching in the streets? And how should we feel about the secretive "Antifa" that violently confronts those seen as Nazis? Should people be allowed to be armed when attending these kinds of demonstrations? What about the person running down pedestrians with a car, and killing one of them? And then there is the issue of how the president and the rest of the government should be expected to react to the events that are taking place. And should they be held in any way responsible for the fact that these events are taking place during their administration? So there are a lot of separate issues at influencing the situation, and therefore people's views on what should happen, and why.
The source issue that led to the event in the first place is the larger movement to remove Confederate statues across the country. This is a vast topic, that I will dedicate a full post to soon. For now we can just say that if the conclusion is that we shouldn't remove them, the results are simple. If we agree that some should be removed, this leads to the complex questions of which ones, and what should the process be for determining that, which I will examine more in that next post. What we have right now, are groups of people taking it upon themselves to remove or destroy statues, and should we turn a blind eye to those acts of vandalism? The only reasonable thing to do is prosecute people doing it illegally, otherwise there would be no logical arguement against burning down abortion clinics, or any other institution that some party finds offensive. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to defend these people and their vandalism.
The fact that there are modern people with a favorable view of the Nazi Party and their ideas does boggle the mind. But they do exist, and they are publicly exercising their right to free speech by expressing their misguided views. So would should the reaction to that be? First off, the government should not do anything beyond keep an eye on them as long they don't go beyond saying things, even if what they are saying is hateful and offensive. Individuals and private companies should be free to avoid associating with or serving or employing them. But as Christians we shouldn't hate them, C.S.Lewis addresses the proper Christian response in Mere Christianity (Bk3-Ch7 Forgiveness). We should always hope for their change of heart or redemption, even if we have to use lethal force to protect others from them. So hating Nazis just makes you more like one of them. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to make Nazis the exception to all civilized rules.
Once someone moves beyond hateful words, to hateful or violent actions, we are in a different situation, and I have no hesitation for the use of force in response. But that escalation from expressing ideas to implementing them forcefully is a significant one. Most of the violence last weekend appears to be conducted between people looking for a conflict, on both sides. The Nazis weren't the only party looking for a fight. Members of Antifa openly advocate violence as a justified response to Nazis, and anyone else they don't approve of. In my opinion Antifa seems more violent than the current generation of Nazis, and I see them as a more realistic threat to our culture, because there is no overwhelming majority actively opposing them. And Antifa operates in anonymity, like the old KKK, while the Nazis are out in the open, allowing them to be identified. Those supporting the Nazi's antagonists might want to consider that 4 years of conflict with Nazis resulted in 40 years of conflict with Communists. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to defend the violent aggression of Antifa's members.
Allegedly someone deliberately ran into a group of pedestrians, killing one and injuring many others. If that is true, it is murder, and I am all for their punishment. but unlike the similar ISIS attacks in Europe, this seems like an impulsive act of malice, not an example of Nazi tactics that we should be concerned about. Due to Virginia being an open carry state, there were also many protesters on both sides of the issue who came armed with guns, presumably for self defense. In my opinion, this is exactly why the 2nd amendment exists, and a success story for the value of having armed citizens. Hundreds of people were involved in a violent conflict, and not a shot was fired, because most of the violence was between the unarmed members. Guns raise the stakes to point where violent conflict is no longer worth the risks. (Similar to nukes in international relations) It is hard to prove that the presence of guns reduced the amount of potential violence, but since not a shot was fired, it would be hard to argue that it increased it any at all. Taking a way guns wouldn't have prevented the one death that did occur, and might have led to more, similar to Europe's current problem with alternatives to guns being used in violent attacks. (Knives, acid, vehicles, etc.) It should be obvious that guns aren't the source of the violence problem, but there are some trying to outlaw their presence, or even existence.
Some how a violent riot in Virginia is being blamed on the President. While a leader is technically in charge, he doesn't control everything that happens within his domain of influence, especially with our limited form of government. But there are some participants who were quoting various things he had said, so he has had some influence on the people involved. He didn't come off very strongly against those involved, especially in his first response, but I can't fault him for blaming both sides. There are many who were offended that he criticized both sides, based on their opinion that the ideas of Antifa aren't as bad as the ideas expressed by the Nazis. But even if that was true, two wrongs don't make a right, and being "better than Nazis" does not make something "good." I find it interesting that this is the issue that appears to be "sticking," more than the weekly issues of the past few months that the media has highlighted in their ongoing effort to discredit the current administration. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more events like this in the near future, as those who are trying to generate narratives like this one appear to have found a successful approach.
